Kiddushin — Daf 24a

אין אשה פודה מעשר שני בלא חומש ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר משום ר' מאיר אשה פודה מעשר שני בלא חומש היכי דמי אילימא בזוזי דבעל ומעשר דבעל שליחותיה דבעל קא עבדה

ואלא בזוזי דידה ומעשר דידיה איש אמר רחמנא ולא אשה

אלא לאו כי האי גוונא דאקני לה אחר מנה ואמר לה ע"מ שתפדי בו את המעשר ואיפכא שמענא להו

אמר אביי איפוך רבא אמר לעולם לא תיפוך והכא במעשר דאתא מבי נשא עסקינן ור"מ לטעמיה דאמר מעשר ממון הקדש הוא ולא קני ליה בעל

ורבנן לטעמייהו דאמרי ממון הדיוט הוא וקני ליה בעל הילכך שליחותא דבעל קעבדא:

תנא יוצא בשן ועין וראשי אברים שאינן חוזרים בשלמא שן ועין כתיבי אלא ראשי אברים מנלן דומיא דשן ועין מה שן ועין מומין שבגלוי ואינן חוזרין אף כל מומין שבגלוי ואינן חוזרין

ואימא ניהוו שן ועין כשני כתובים הבאים כאחד וכל שני כתובים הבאים כאחד אין מלמדין צריכא דאי כתב רחמנא שן הוה אמינא אפילו

A woman cannot redeem second tithe without [adding] a fifth. R. Simeon b. Eleazar said on R. Meir's authority: A woman can redeem second tithe without [adding] a fifth.1 Now, how is this meant? Shall we say, [she redeems it] with her husband's money, the second tithe also being her husband's — then she merely acts as her husband's agent.2 But if with her money3 and his tithe, the Divine Law said, [And if] a man [will redeem aught of his tithe, then he shall add there to the fifth part thereof],4 but not his wife?5 Hence it surely refers to such a case, viz., that a stranger gave her a maneh, and said,’On condition that you redeem the tithe therewith,’ and thus we learn that they hold contrary opinions.6 — Said Abaye: Then reverse it.7 Raba said: After all, you need not reverse it, but here the reference is to tithe which came [to her] from her father's estate,8 R. Meir following his opinion that tithe is sacred property,9 so that her husband does not acquire it.10 The Rabbis too are in accord with their view that tithe is secular property, [the usufruct of which] her husband acquires. Therefore she is [merely] deputising for her husband. A Tanna taught: He [the heathen slave] goes out [free] through [the loss of] his eye, tooth, and projecting limbs which do not return.11 Now, as for [the loss of] his tooth or eye, it is well: these are written.12 But how do we know [the loss of] the projecting limbs? — By analogy with tooth and eye: just as these are patent blemishes, and do not return, so [is he freed for the loss of] all [limbs which are] patent blemishes and do not return. But let us say that ‘tooth’ and ‘eye’ are two laws13 which come as one,14 and whenever two verses come as one, they do not illumine [other cases].15 — Both are necessary. For had the All-Merciful mentioned ‘tooth’ [only], I would have argued, [It refers] even redeemed his own, he added a fifth of its value, but not when he redeemed second tithe belonging to another, unless the owner deputed him. It is assumed that this Baraitha refers to the crops of her husband's field. usufruct. This money, and all other property held by a wife on the same terms, are designated ‘property of plucking’ (v. Glos. s.v. mulug). can both acquire independently or both can not. likewise ‘property of plucking’. usufruct; hence it is entirely her own, and when she redeems it with her husband's money, no fifth is necessary. (For redeeming one's own tithe with money belonging to another is the same in law as redeeming another Person's tithe with one's own money.) loss of which has the same result, would be included.